If Zeiss you must have, get one with a Nikon mount and adapt it. Read somewhere that Zeiss is about to add Pentax mounts to their line. Don't know whether Pentax mounts to Canon, though. Otherwise buy a Sony body.
lendur2 wrote:
If Zeiss you must have, get one with a Nikon mount and adapt it. Read somewhere that Zeiss is about to add Pentax mounts to their line. Don't know whether Pentax mounts to Canon, though. Otherwise buy a Sony body.
You overlooked the option of getting a Nikon body for ZF.
There are three reasons why we want Zeiss in EOS mount:
1. auto aperture = no stop down metering
2. no adapter width hassles
3. no additional costs for the adapter or conversion process
The ZF, ZS, and ZK lenses all have mechanical aperture linkages, so is there any reason to believe that Zeiss don't want to make a ZE (Canon) mount lens because it would require electronics? And if so, are "patent considerations" then simply an excuse of convenience?
There's a difference between ability and desire, and I'm not suggesting that Zeiss *can't* do electronics because surely they can, but do they even want to?
I think that certainly has to be considered given their apparent reluctance to even chip the ZF lenses for Nikon bodies to read lens type (am i correct on this?). The patents should be up by now since it has been over 20 years since the debut of the EOS mount. So I've been thinking that if they don't come out with an EOS line for this Photokina then they probably won't for many years, if ever.
Due to Canon's present day poor quality and not allowing good lens makers like Zeiss and Leica to make lenses for their users are 2 of the reasons why I am really considering switching back to Nikon or maybe over to Sony or Pentax for my next system upgrade. Anyway digital is not like film photography where equipment last forever, this goes for digital lenses too. Look at the EF-S and FX lenses now, they will be obsoleted once users switch over to FF.
hmmm... as an EOS user of more than 20 years I'd say that Canon gear is the best it has ever been... not that it is Leica or Zeiss... but at a tiny fraction of the cost and being able to still be the pro's choice world-wide... I don't know. Granted, I guess they could come out with a Golden-L series of lenses priced like Leica... but I seriously wonder how many they would sell...
hans98ko wrote:
Look at the EF-S and FX lenses now, they will be obsoleted once users switch over to FF.
Sorry for nitpicking but FX are the full frame, DX are the crop frame lenses.
I agree that FF bodies will become cheaper but I don't think APS-C format will go away for at least another couple of decades.
I see no real reason why Zeiss can't simply make a focus confirmation MF version of their lenses for EOS, so users like myself and many others won't have to supplement the cost of their zeiss lenses with a quality adapter!
mh2000 wrote:
hmmm... as an EOS user of more than 20 years I'd say that Canon gear is the best it has ever been... not that it is Leica or Zeiss... but at a tiny fraction of the cost and being able to still be the pro's choice world-wide... I don't know. Granted, I guess they could come out with a Golden-L series of lenses priced like Leica... but I seriously wonder how many they would sell...
>>Due to Canon's present day poor quality...
Cannon at a tiny fraction of the price? All to often people come up with this Zeiss expensive - Canon cheap mantra that can only stem from completely realized cognitive dissonance, here are a few price comparisons to consider:
35L = $1,180
ZF35= $826
85L = $1870
ZF85 = $1033
CZ21 2.8 = $2500 - $3000
300 2.8L = $4100 [a best wide to best telephoto comparison]
Of course there are some other comparisons where Canon is a little cheaper but not enough to say that they are a tiny fraction of the price or consistently offer better value.
35L = $1,180 ZF35= $826 85L = $1870 ZF85 = $1033
I suspect if Zeiss made a current 1.4 wide angle and a 1.2 short tele, the prices would be off the earth... I think you'll find second hand the Contax lenses that correspond directly with the Ls go for significantly more than the Ls new. Certainly the 85 1.2 would. Same with the 135 2.0, the 50 1.2 etc. Where there are direct equivalents, the Zeiss costs more. As it should - in most cases they are better lenses.
Has anyone actually written to Zeiss to find out why they do not make lenses for Canon ?
If it doesn't have to do with patent issues or licensing issues, maybe it is possible they don't think Canon user's would buy manual focus lenses when Canon L's offer the high speed USM AF with decent quality glass that would cost half of what a Zeiss manual focus lens would cost.
Maybe Nikon or Sony actually asked Zeiss to make lenses in their mount and Canon does not think it needs Zeiss lenses to be competitive in the market.
One can only speculate until a valid reason from a reliable source can provide an answer.
pascal03 wrote:
Has anyone actually written to Zeiss to find out why they do not make lenses for Canon ?
Zeiss is great about replying to email; I've sent them a few. Their answers can be cryptic and short though, or sometimes they just flat out "don't know". That was their answer when I asked what the focal length of the 35-70/3.4's macro function is.
Maybe Nikon or Sony actually asked Zeiss to make lenses in their mount and Canon does not think it needs Zeiss lenses to be competitive in the market.
I don't believe Nikon is all that happy about ZF lenses. For Nikon, more choice is only good if it's a Nikkor.
Justin D wrote:
I suspect if Zeiss made a current 1.4 wide angle and a 1.2 short tele, the prices would be off the earth... I think you'll find second hand the Contax lenses that correspond directly with the Ls go for significantly more than the Ls new. Certainly the 85 1.2 would. Same with the 135 2.0, the 50 1.2 etc. Where there are direct equivalents, the Zeiss costs more. As it should - in most cases they are better lenses.
Wait until we see the price of the new 18/3.5. Wowsa, in my neck of the woods people are already talking about prices close to 2 grand. And look at the current 100/2. $1700. Yikes.
pascal03 wrote:
Maybe Nikon or Sony actually asked Zeiss to make lenses in their mount and Canon does not think it needs Zeiss lenses to be competitive in the market.
Nikon had nothing to do with Zeiss making ZF lenses in the Nikon F mount. As Steven suggested, I bet that Nikon is none too pleased about the availability of ZF lenses.
Sony is a completely different story. Sony contracted with Zeiss to design lenses for them (actually, to be accurate, they contracted with them to collaborate with them on lens designs). Sony helps design, manufacturers, markets and sells the "Zeiss" ZA lenses for their DSLR's, and has them totally integrated into their system. Sony completely controls the "Zeiss" ZA lenses at every step. When Sony sells a "Zeiss" ZA lens, Sony directly benefits. When Zeiss sells a ZF lens, Nikon gets no direct benefit (possible indirect benefit from people buying Nikon bodies -- that they would not have other wise bought -- to use the ZF lenses).
StevenPA wrote:
Wait until we see the price of the new 18/3.5. Wowsa, in my neck of the woods people are already talking about prices close to 2 grand. And look at the current 100/2. $1700. Yikes.
That's a 17-40 zoom on a 1Ds3. Great lens. Great camera. Great value (well, the lens, certainly).
> ...and not allowing good lens makers like Zeiss and Leica to make lenses for their users are 2 of the reasons why I am really considering switching back to Nikon or maybe over to Sony or Pentax for my next system upgrade.
Switch away, but Canon will continue to make highly competitive lenses and cameras. Which are better or worse than other companies' alternatives? That's for you to find out.
> Anyway digital is not like film photography where equipment last forever, this goes for digital lenses too. Look at the EFS and FX lenses now, they will be obsoleted once users switch over to FF.
No. I am using a Zeiss 28 today which I bought in 1987. Well chosen lenses can stand you in good stead for decades. Even Canon ones. 200 f1.8 anyone?
This blanket brand-oriented witch hunt isn't appropriate today. Canon makes some of the best lenses in the world. So does Nikon. So does Zeiss. So does Leica. They all make some less good gear too.
Justin D wrote:
I suspect if Zeiss made a current 1.4 wide angle and a 1.2 short tele, the prices would be off the earth... I think you'll find second hand the Contax lenses that correspond directly with the Ls go for significantly more than the Ls new. Certainly the 85 1.2 would. Same with the 135 2.0, the 50 1.2 etc. Where there are direct equivalents, the Zeiss costs more. As it should - in most cases they are better lenses.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the two 1.2 Zeiss lenses were only made in small numbers as aniversary lenses, not for mass production like Canon's L lenses. Of course, when the 18mm ZF is listed here in Europe at 1.300EUR, that's some heavy cash, but if it is that good, it will take the wind out of the 21mm used prices, not to mention it's C/Y brother.
thrice wrote:
I see no real reason why Zeiss can't simply make a focus confirmation MF version of their lenses for EOS, so users like myself and many others won't have to supplement the cost of their zeiss lenses with a quality adapter!
I agree. I am starting another thread about this to encourage people to contact Zeiss and ask. "Ask and it shall be given to you". Asking can't hurt, and the more of us that do it, the more likely it is that Zeiss will listen...
Cableaddict wrote:
Even if so, reverse-engineering is still patent infringement.
Reverse engineering is not patent infringement if done to insure compatibility, which is what a third party lens with an EOS mount/EOS logic protocol is.
I suspect it has something to do with the relationship Zeiss had with Japanese camera company Yashica begining ion the 1970's, later bought by Kyocera. Most likely some sort of agreement not to compete regarding certain types of lenses for certain types of cameras.
